tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12906299.post3499793157222015308..comments2023-05-26T09:52:30.568-04:00Comments on This Old Blog: Digital vs. Film: The Process of Taking PicturesBillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06749942763035029635noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12906299.post-14809689763449112262011-04-23T23:00:45.082-04:002011-04-23T23:00:45.082-04:00Interesting analysis and presentation.
Regarding...Interesting analysis and presentation. <br /><br />Regarding film, I'm with Octo most of the way. I use slide film only on extremely rare occasions, and none of those have happened in almost a year. Right now a roll of Provia 400X, my transparency of choice, is almost $10 @B&H, while Ektar 100 costs $4.50 for 135 and even less in 120 format. E-6 processing is also more expensive. <br /><br />Where I differ is in using C41 process film only; that said I do have a good-quality lab across the street from where I work, and another near my home. I can duck out, drop off a few rolls, and have them done by the afternoon. I then do all of my own scanning, using a Nikon V for 135, and a cheap flatbed with a good holder for 120. I'd love a Nikon 9000, and if I stop buying cameras, maybe I could afford one.<br /><br />I've standardized on three films:<br /><br />Ilford XP2 (iso400) for black and white, in both 135 and 120 formats. This has a somewhat different look than traditional B&W (the grain is backwards) but captures great tones and scans reliably.<br /><br />Ektar 100 for 135 colour. It's very similar to slide film, and its colour response changes with overexposure which can give an unusual creative control. It's too fickle for my MF cameras, though.<br /><br />Portra 400 for 120 colour, and soon as a 'high speed' option for 135. I typically over expose it by one-third to a full stop, and can't tell the difference in the results. Bulletproof and rewarding.<br /><br />It is easier to deal with slide film only because it gives an original colour reference. Getting the colour balance on film scans can be a real pain, and while negatives aren't any more difficult than slide, at least they don't need a machine to interpret them.<br /><br />I haven't used a digital camera for my Serious Fun photography in almost a year; snapshots and product shots remain (mostly) digital. After my last big outing, I have to say that there weren't any big surprises from the ten rolls of film. I knew what the finished photo would look like as I was taking it, correctly predicted which would be the two best, and didn't take a bunch of photos that I knew would flop just from thinking about what I saw in the viewfinder. <br /><br />That's not to say that I didn't come home with plenty of duds and a scarcity of masterpieces – that remains a result of the photographer, and doesn't change with the camera.<br /><br />What I have found is that the number of good photos that I produce has more to do with the time I spend than the number of exposures that I take. I've learned that I can't compare frame-for-frame costs between different formats, whether film or digital. Whether it's 9-on-120 or 36-on-135, a roll ends up around $10 and will give three or four photos that I'm pleased with, and about as many that I'll consider decent. Of course digital has no direct costs – and the computer and data demands can be greater with film – but I take better than a hundred photos with my D700 in the same amount of time and end up with the same number of good images.<br /><br />Between those two things – negative film for lower costs and a realistic estimate of how much film I'll actually use – I find that the consumables are fairly reasonable. I'm certainly not about to leave behind all of the benefits of digital photography, but the expenses of film don't stop me from using the cameras – and medium – that I prefer.Matthew Robertsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04134787874718415563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12906299.post-68267759140353382632011-04-22T23:52:41.085-04:002011-04-22T23:52:41.085-04:00One way to deal with the processing delay issue is...One way to deal with the processing delay issue is to just shoot B&W and process it yourself. For B&W, I think I like the look of film better anyways.<br /><br />Then again, regardless of whether I'm shooting B&W or Color, I now always scan it myself. Why? Even at the better places, the default scan-while-processing option produces results noticeably sub-par to what I can do on my own gear. Unlike your average back-in-the-day point-and-shooter, I actually do hold my film photography to the same standards as modern digital. As such, it only holds up if I use both good film and good scanning.<br /><br />That being said, there are a variety of good negative (print) films also worth using, even if you're going to just wind up scanning them. Print films have higher exposure latitude, which makes them more forgiving of imperfection. For B&W, my current favorite is Fuji Acros 100 (or Kodak Tri-X 400, depending on the look I want). For color, Kodak's new Ektar 100 gives you that same fine-grain punch you'd normally need to shoot Fuji Velvia (slide film) to get.<br /><br />Of course now you have another cost factor to consider... Quality scanners aren't cheap, and aren't that easy to find anymore either. But for anything medium-format or smaller, my Nikon Coolscan 9000 will blow the socks off of the usual processing-shop auto-scan and any cheap(er) flat-bed scanner. (yes, I can get usable 60MP scans off medium-format Fuji Velvia and Kodak Ektar) Of course scanning is still a time-consuming pain in the butt.<br /><br />P.S. While a bit more tedious to use, my smaller 35mm-only Nikon Coolscan V is up for grabs, if interested.Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14640499079957252690noreply@blogger.com